ufgators68 said:
Juggs said:
Evil gator said:
well fuck. try this
https://ruthlesspodcast.com/episodes/kamala-rebrands-again
How many different ways can she repeat the same sentence?
Wasn't she a prosecutor or something like that? I watched a prosecutor (jury duty), ask a defendant, the same question a dozen different ways.
Yep. Following article is quite harsh to "Giggles" Harris:
They Aimed to Make History. They Got Kamala Harris
23rd November 2022 Comments (13)
Exactly why anyone would want Kamala Harris is something of a mystery. She didn’t marry until she was just shy of her fiftieth birthday. It is, of course, barbarically sexist to comment on a successful woman’s romantic life (just ask Gladys), but in Harris’s case it’s relevant. She got her start in politics at the tender age of twenty-nine when her romantic partner at the time, the sixty-year-old speaker of the California state legislature, appointed her to a high-pay, low-work sinecure on the California Medical Assistance Commission. Nothing to see here; move along. Down with the Patriarchy.
After more than a decade in (appointed) government employment, Harris ran for and won the elected post of San Francisco District Attorney in 2004. Yes, America elects its local prosecutors (as well as its sheriffs, accountants and dog-catchers). In her first two years in office, Harris suspended the use of the death penalty for murder, created a special hate crimes unit, and offered convicted drug dealers the option to study for a degree instead of going to prison. When violent crime spiked, she switched to throwing offenders in jail—and throwing away the key.
Harris’s new “tough on crime” persona alienated progressives, but propelled her to state-level office. In 2010, she was elected California’s Attorney General with the endorsement of the state’s two long-time senators (Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer) and her local very-long-time congresswoman (one Nancy Pelosi). With such powerful party stalwarts underwriting her campaign, Harris was able to win a whopping 33.6 per cent of the vote in the Democratic Party primary. Her six male opponents split the remaining two-thirds, leaving Harris in command of the field. Score: Harris 1, Patriarchy 0.
In the ensuing general election, the perennially successful Democratic candidate for everything, Jerry Brown, handily won the governor’s race with a 51–44 victory over the perennially unsuccessful Republican candidate for everything, Meg Whitman. Lower down the ticket, Harris snuck through with a plurality of 46.1 per cent, just pipping her (male) Republican opponent’s 45.3 per cent of the vote. Score: Harris 2, Patriarchy 0.
Now, in American elections, particularly at the state level, most people just pull a big lever that is labelled either “D” or “R”, without paying much attention to the actual names listed under each. In that 2010 California state election, the Democratic Party candidate for governor won by a margin of 1.3 million votes. The Democratic Party candidate for lieutenant governor won by 1.1 million. For secretary of state, by 1.4 million; for state controller, by 1.8 million; for state treasurer, by 2 million; for insurance commissioner, by 1.2 million. Harris won her election by a mere 74,453 votes. For anyone to even notice a down-ticket candidate like Harris was remarkable. That people disliked her enough to specifically vote against her in the midst of a Democratic Party landslide is truly astonishing......
(read the rest) https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2022/11/they-aimed-to-make-history-they-got-kamala-harris/
